Excellent article, Dan. It makes it harder for me to keep supporting Trammel-in-HOF side. Still if the Oz is voted in...

Posted by: Didi at
January 9, 2007 12:30 PM

I still wish we had a definition of what makes a HOFer. To me, you have to be the best in your position in your league for a 5 year period. Still open for conjecture what makes someone better. It means that Keith and Donnie both make it, since they meet the criteria for me. I would do it anyway.

Doesn't answer the question always, such as what do you do with two in the same league at the same time. Say Kaline and Frank Robinson. Then of course, you vote 'em both in..which means my criteria means less. How about we just get rid of the veteran committee and call it a day? The reporters are dopes, but collectively, they are doing a good job. The Vets vote in their buddies, so if you get in that way, at least, give them a *

Except Santo, he should be there anyway.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at
January 9, 2007 12:52 PM

Excellent work, as usual. I cannot disagree with you more on the political stuff, but I think your baseball analysis is first rate. You should consider publishing a book on baseball.

Posted by: Steve at
January 9, 2007 12:54 PM

The revised veterans committee has essentially been rendered irrelevant, since they aren't likely to ever elect anybody. Since it's so hard to get elected by them, I can accept their function as basically the replay officials of the process. Not like the old committee, where it seemed like they went out for drinks and came back to elect somebody they kind of remembered as being good without looking up his stats.

Posted by: Jerry at
January 9, 2007 3:13 PM

Quite the trio.

Bonner had 108 career ABs (hitting .194) and Schneider pitched 1 year and threw 24 innings. I guess if you averaged the three of them out together they all did OK.